Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Absurd Trolley Problems

neal.fun

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

591–600 of 951 posts

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#591

Post by DoughnutHole »

JasonFruit wrote: post #581

I think trolley problems are mostly linguistic. Take this wording: "Oh no! A trolley is careening into a crowd! Should I try to turn it so it goes through the sparsest part of the crowd?" I think most people — by a wide margin — would say yes, because it's worded as still hitting the same thing, just hitting it in a way that does less damage, and we feel differently about that than hitting a different thing, "this gu…

That's not really just a difference of language, it's a different situation from the base trolley problem. You're describing a realistic situation where the potential outcomes are fuzzy and you're just trying to minimise the probability of damage. The base problem is binary - definitely let 5 people die or definitely deliberately kill 1 person.

If you believe the probabilistic and discrete versions of the problem are the same that just means you fall into the utilitarian camp when it comes to this thought experiment, and believe that the outcome is the only thing that matters.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#592

Post by pawelmurias »

Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #522
rax0m wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did the problems under the assumption that "pulling the lever" was an act, while doing nothing was not acting. Implied legal (and moral) liabilities made a difference in my choices.

Legally perhaps, but morally, I've never gotten why so many people think that the physical act of pulling or not pulling makes so much difference. It's a binary decision with two outcomes, in my personal view it is irrelevant which of the outcomes is caused by physical action and which by inaction (at least, supposing that you have enough time to think about what to do - obviously, if you have to react in a split sec…

In real life scenarios there is a built in uncertainty with doing an action. Imagine a scenario where you redirect the trolley to kill someone but the people you wanted to save would have survived anyway.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#593

Post by fendy3002 »

galfarragem wrote: post #446
_nalply wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please be explicit. Do you mean something like insurance: a small amount of people has insurance but someone decided to insure even the people who haven't paid insurance? In that case it's clear that I won't pull the lever. It's not a question of life and death, and because I am not sure whether pulling the lever helps preventing lots of damage, I won't do anything, especially because perhaps it's just a vague and ab…

An extreme example: Government builds a dam. It clearly recommends people to not build in front of the dam, it may crack and a flood would be a tragedy. 100K people ignore it and slowly houses appear: it's cheaper, better land, views, etc. 1K people choose to comply with Government and build in a safe but ugly and infertile area. One day, suddenly, a huge crack appears. At the last minute engineers discovered "a leve…

It's easy if you're politician that's up to reelection. If it's your base voters, then pull it, it's 100K of potential voter. If it's not your base voters then let them perish.

If you're enterpreneur, see whether 100K people is more beneficial than the other 1K. For example if you have a factory that needs many workforce and can utilize the 100K, save them.

If somehow you pull the lever, make a press conference showing sorrow and guilty face telling it's inevitable. If you don't pull the lever, don't expose the info until asked.

If you're not a decision maker, leave it to your supervisor. If somehow you have the loved one in 100K, pull the lever anyway.

Sadly this is the shape of our world right now.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#594

Post by addandsubtract »

_nalply wrote: post #398
SilverBirch wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah one of the issues with the trolley problem is how literally you take the problem. If you take it perfectly literally and say "5 vs 1" (for the pure example) no other context I think you can very easily come to a conclusion that is the opposite of what you'd do in real life, where either due to lack of certainty, lack of perfect knowledge or some iterative game theory interpretation, you would act differently.

The problem is the responsibility. If you aren't willing to take over responsibility, it's better not to do anything. If you already have responsibility then it's a different matter.

The problem I have with the premise, is that as soon as you're standing next to the level, you're responsible. You had the opportunity to pull the lever, but didn't, which makes you responsible.

Similarly, if you're diving a car and someone walks across the road in front of you, are you not responsible for their death if you choose not to step on the brakes? Does inaction relieve you of any responsibility?

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#595

Post by lazide »

ptsneves wrote: post #355
jedberg wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always assume trolley problems are in a vacuum without context. Otherwise for every one of them you have to ask, "what is the background of each person on each track" to make a proper choice. I assume the information they have told me is the only thing relevant and everything else is equal.

In philosophy Kant would disagree with you with his Categorical Imperative[1]. Rawls also went that way, with the veil of ignorance[2]. The lack of state or context is not only desirable but is the whole foundation on why their theories are rational. Of course many philosophers disagree and arguably terrible things were done with such mindset[3]. The point I am trying to make is that if you need context then you cann…

How can the minimum be increased to match the average without making it mathematically impossible for there to be no salaries above the average?

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#596

Post by Rayhem »

throwawayarnty wrote: post #105

I never understood how the trolley problem applies to real life. When is there ever a situation where you have perfect and complete information about a scenario? Only in thought experiments. The situation where the boxes are probabilistic was more realistic. You’re never sure in real life that you will certainly do less harm if you pull vs not pull.

The point of the trolley problem isn't to answer the trolley problem (either globally in the framework of moral absolutism or locally in the framework of "what do you personally value?"). The point of the trolley problem is to scaffold the discussion about how you answer the trolley problem and other moral dilemmas. If you prefer to switch the trolley to actively kill one person over passively allowing five to die, the interesting point is not "that's absurd, the real world doesn't work that way!" but why the real world doesn't work that way. What else goes into our decision to not harvest one person's organs to save five others?

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#597

Post by lupire »

Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #522
rax0m wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did the problems under the assumption that "pulling the lever" was an act, while doing nothing was not acting. Implied legal (and moral) liabilities made a difference in my choices.

Legally perhaps, but morally, I've never gotten why so many people think that the physical act of pulling or not pulling makes so much difference. It's a binary decision with two outcomes, in my personal view it is irrelevant which of the outcomes is caused by physical action and which by inaction (at least, supposing that you have enough time to think about what to do - obviously, if you have to react in a split sec…

You would enjoy Peter Singer's writing. You are killing children by not donating your wealth to help them.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#598

Post by andybak »

gfiorav wrote: post #584

I know there are flaws to my reasoning, but I can't shake the thought: How/Why those poor people ended on the track is more important to fix than to focus on the responsibility of the guy pulling the lever.

It’s that cabal of evil experimental Utilitarians.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#600

Post by lupire »

capableweb wrote: post #506
praptak wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actual law strongly discerns between action and inaction. For example the Polish penal code says you can only be criminally liable for a result of inaction only if you had a specific legal obligation to prevent it.

That's ok, it wouldn't change my mind anyway. If I can prevent more people from getting hurt, I'd be willing to break the law and take the punishment.

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN